It's special room. And then a couple of New York with a CBC news digital special report accused of murder Aaron Hernandez who is back in court 24 year old former star tight -- for the New England Patriots. Says the district attorney has violated his right to a fair trial after breaking a gag order. And the DA says it's that is not so and now both sides will make their arguments for judge Susan guard -- in Fall River. With the latest now hold anybody -- Cesar Izturis who's been on the case on this Aaron how significant -- -- is this. Well -- significant in terms of its lawyering but there is you know in terms of how the general public views the case I'm not sure that it's going to make. A significant difference problem for the that the prosecutors Wednesday. Have overstepped according to the defense attorneys and have talked about the case publicly far too often as opposed to. That is -- what would be normal protocol at least as as as the defense attorneys -- it. This is he fit. The defense attorneys would prefer prosecutors say nothing about Aaron Hernandez but this is of course. A fairly big deal for for district attorney Sam -- in the end in Bristol county Massachusetts. And he certainly probably wants them to make a little hey but he also believes that he has acted. -- -- -- his rights as a prosecutor to say certain things during the course of the investigation. So there will be dispute in -- today in court. And we are going to be listen in as the corpus he will be it is too -- we did see someone get up and leave the courtroom presumably a relative of Oden Lloyd the deceased. -- let me ask you this -- are waiting for this to begin isn't realistic go to the think the case might in fact be thrown out because this case -- really. -- riddled with problems right from the get go. Well it did -- the -- itself against Aaron Hernandez prosecutors have long maintained is a strong case when it comes to the evidence. Of murder and we have seen in court records. One of his of his co defendants. Coming clean to say that he was -- -- Aaron Hernandez pulled the trigger now whether all of that holds water ultimately. I guess remains to be seen but is as far as that the murder charge itself prosecutors are fairly confident. In their case has any prosecutor would be heroes they wouldn't bring the case defense attorneys seem equally. Convinced that they are able to get. -- to -- -- to -- this. Now that -- these allegations of evidence that prosecutors are talking too much -- today there should be a more restrictive gag order. That's all for the judge to work out and in a little bit more sideshow what it what exactly are the judge's options if in fact this. Is ruled that a gag order was violated what does she left with -- that well you're right it's a good question me she could I guess ultimately sanction the prosecutors say if there there were terms that were were violated but it's not as if this is going to get Aaron Hernandez off on murder charges. It could get you know the prosecutors slapped a little bit but but even -- It's not going to two demonstrably Alter the accusation against Aaron Hernandez which is that he. Committed murder against -- loaded and -- -- Stanley is now suing him in for. Performed for some money for wrongful death with a standard. As we've seen another high profile cases is far lower. That a criminal murder indictment now Hernandez was arrested very publicly back in June on the Lloyd murder charge. -- he has pled not guilty any indication. Of an actual trial date though I mean given that the developments we're seeing right now and and that's why -- know it's always been said that this could be well into 2014 before there's -- Actual trial on the way in Massachusetts has set up did they case has to go for a few different master nations before it actually gets there but but sometimes. In the coming here at stop and Aaron Hernandez. Would stand trial his defense attorneys seem to vote put out the message that there will not be any kind of a plea bargain not that there's any. Necessarily been offered it it's probably -- Aaron Hernandez's interest. In order to to move forward with the trial -- from death penalty in Massachusetts that those of most he could get it is his wife and and so it's there's really nothing to. Two -- negotiating here. Aaron Hernandez is -- shot may well be -- to stand trial before Jerry who would undoubtedly know him from his days playing with a New England Patriots. And and take its chances. -- stay with us as we're gonna watch this court proceeding. Occur right now and we -- to see -- pretty dramatic shot right there as those handcuffs removed from Aaron Hernandez. Obviously a request those made by his attorneys but let's listen now and find out what's going on with this proceeding. To preclude prejudicial extra judicial statements. The procedural history on this particular issue -- back to the district court level. When that time of the defendant's arraignment and in light of the attention that the matter was receiving. Doctor -- in the district court orally entered. Such an order preventing prejudicial extrajudicial statements. That -- expired and the matter was transferred to superior court pursuant to the indictment. The defendant has appeared before -- runner and requested. The renewal of emotion to preclude prejudicial action initial statements. And that matter want us discussed -- the court. And culminated with the issuance of the court's October 15. Mortar. That order. Which was quite measured. And a proper exercise of the court's discretion. Did not impose an order. The violation of which could be punished. By contempt of court. But instead. In the words of the order itself. And help the council and the agents who are working for council. To the standards set forth in the rules of professional responsibility. And further was accompanied by what this court referred to in the order. As a strong admonition to counsel to refrain from engaging in prejudicial picture judicial statements. Less than two weeks after the entry of this court order on October 15. The defendant was the subject of a a rush of prejudicial extrajudicial statements. These statements emanated from in event. That occurred at -- -- stadium. When he witnessed before a grand jury. Was publicly served with process to appear before Bristol county grand jury. This was accompanied by near instantaneous. Press coverage. That was attributed to various sources close to the investigation. Indeed. That -- sources were named as sources close to the investigation. Sources who were not authorized to speak. On behalf of law enforcement. Indeed attributed to law enforcement for sources themselves. Very express it very clear. Statements made to the media. About a new investigation allegedly being launched against the defendant. This time the subject of the investigation. Was supposedly. Trafficking and an interstate away with guns and firearms illegal gun trafficking. Never before had this matter. Had these accusations surfaced in this case the defendant having been. The subject of -- very clear indictment. That predated this activity. But immediately. A barrage of negative press. Was. Launched against the defended -- Surfaced wanted to be. Is that we -- Almost entirely quote cumulative material ready for the public to me aware of anything on the even before the Sports Illustrated story about. -- investigating. And state contracted. Absolutely not to be -- first -- certain gun and weapon and ten accompanying equipment charges such as large capacity magazines and so forth in the indictment but never before. Was there -- A an allegation that this defendant was involved in interstate gun running and and it even if he had had been in the public domain before. The rekindling of such us an accusation. And the expansion of the -- of the accusation across. Numerous media outlets. Accusing the defendant of yet another crop yet another uncharged -- Had a prejudicial effect against this defendant. -- the problem with these extrajudicial statements your honor is whether -- -- true or not. When they are attributed to law enforcement sources they can be stopped. By the exercise of this court's discretion by entering an order that would prohibit law enforcement sources. The very sources that I have set forth in the affidavit that accompanies our renewed motion. From engaging in this behavior whether it's true or not doesn't matter it is all prejudicial. And what has happened over the course of this case is that there have been flurries. Of extra judicial statements attributed expressly. Quite unlike for example in the -- case that we offer to the court as authorities. Quite unlike a number of the articles in that case which would just attributed to blind sources. These are attributed to law enforcement sources or law enforcement sources connected to the investigation. So here the court can do something and what we are asking is something very modest your -- We are not here today to -- and make findings as to whether or not the defendant was prejudiced by these statements that we believe he wants. We are here today can indicate a right. That is it that lies at the core of our motion and lies at the core of our process and that is that mr. Hernandez is entitled to a fair trial. He's entitled to a jury panel that has not been poisoned by either false. War sensational. Statements that come not from strangers or -- persons but from law enforcement. And to the extent we have received in our opposition what I would call highest denials. By the commonwealth. Of engaging in this behavior. It really matters not what we didn't receive from the commonwealth was any factual information as in for example in the -- case. We're a motion similar to -- was met with affidavits. That clearly put out -- -- factual record from dozens of law enforcement. Agents and attorneys associated with the case that they had not engaged in this practice here we have -- We have nothing but the ball denials that are set forth in the record in the opposition filed by the commonwealth and. To become -- acumen and that the defendant is not entitled to. Any of the requested. Because who have Sports Illustrated sources where any -- the other sources are not. In Europe it. No your -- I would respond. Quote this -- first and direct the court -- case which in itself says. That a private -- she showed. -- that is required for the relief that we see. He is and I quote typically based upon. The press articles themselves that appear in the press. So in the -- case for the court carefully looked and said this private facie case also. In the words of the court is not that -- is not that difficult to establish. Because what we are putting for the court we are showing -- that the articles themselves contain the prejudicial information. Of course we can't identify the specific source. Within the law enforcement community all of these leaks if we could. We would probably ask that the district attorney prosecute that person. For contempt of court for a violation of rule five. The identity of witnesses in this appearing of witnesses to the grand jury. So I would say that that is a false argument it directs any barrier that could never be satisfied. By any defendant who was simply trying to. Put the reins on statements that will accumulate in the public. And affect his right to a fair trial. I would further ask your honor and just clarify one thing that in the Commonwealth's opposition the commonwealth appears to be. Appears to be litigating a matter that is not before this court I want to say again we're not here today. To establish that mr. Hernandez. Cannot receive a fair trial or that that the yet jury -- jury Crennel has been. You retrieve -- -- tainted by this conduct. We are here at the early stages of the case which is supported by the case law. The early stages we are simply asking the court to exercise its discretion. And and act on what the shepherd case and the -- case refer to as a court's duty yet early stages. To. Here. To prevent law enforcement. From making extradition statements this press -- -- what are some examples are what do you say it would be. Here we're your proposed order tracks the -- but -- just ask you to tell me what you think steps. That would constitute. Certainly certainly. We would like to see yet there is nothing in the record today again contrast this with the -- -- rocket that went for the district court and the -- case. We would like to know. How the law enforcement team has been apprised of the court's order what is the extent. All the that's what's been done nothing to what steps do you think should it -- that have been done -- should be done. What are you wouldn't -- it is reasonable here when I was there is reasonable here. Filled -- that is imposed by the rules and by this court order on the fifteenth is that that on the Commonwealth's side that the commonwealth should. -- -- Attest to this court and she joins us back to -- -- they had taken steps. To a price -- every single into judgment on this case is essentially the rural what does that that they are seeking right now. -- added that the prosecutors didn't -- like -- shut up. And and stop talking about Aaron Hernandez and stop as they see it. Making statements that could potentially. -- influential to a jury -- down the road and so they'd also like that the judge to toughen up. The gag order that's already in place and and and make sure that the name Aaron Hernandez is not -- From now until trial now hoping that there of the prosecutors believe that it is they have not been as egregious -- in in violating his perhaps the defense attorneys expressed -- -- -- conduct is an entirely appropriate. As usually and see how the judge make that ruling nine ABC's -- -- -- case -- thank you for your time and your insight on that and of course we will continue to live stream this court proceeding -- is -- going underway in Fall River, Massachusetts. But for now I'm Dan Cutler -- New York with a CBC and -- special report former NFL star Aaron Hernandez in court arguing his right to a a fair trial in his murder case that's has been violate one level escalation. This.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":21315856,"title":"Aaron Hernandez Defense Attorneys File New Motion","duration":"3:00","description":"Lawyers for the former Patriots tight end argue that prosecutors violated a gag order.","url":"/US/video/aaron-hernandez-defense-attorneys-file-motion-21315856","section":"US","mediaType":"default"}